9/11 Pentagon conspiracy

While I have no doubt the government made a lot of use of those events for political gain, I'd say the pentagon no plane theories are on par with thinking no planes hit the trade centers (instead claiming holograms, DEW, mini-nukes, and missiles)... kinda dumb...

Also having a few experts "support it" is all nice, but if their own facts are wrong then they don't get my attention. It's also quite embarrassing when they feel it more important to mock people they perceive as apparent threats rather than making their case as professionals. While you can make the argument that individuals (on most of the loose change style forums we get labelled as "debunkers") might be rude and abusive, it' think you should take to heart that this same behavior is taking place in an organization that intends to present themselves as career professionals. This is not the kinda of behavior any company regardless of their status should ever endorse, if they want to be that way on their own individual basis that's their business, but they've done a pretty good job of making their organizations look appallingly unprofessional and amateurish. This doesn't help especially with their own work on the 911 stuff being woefully poor and amateurish.

Pentagon Conspiracy

9-11Hatched in the Pentagon?

That is a plan has been in existence, long before 9-11; a plan that described a switch between a drone appearing to be a passenger plane and an actual carrier. The true passengers were later off boarded at an unknown location, but had--in theory--no idea of what happened.

With respect to WTC, we know that the melting point of steel does not support the government's theory that air plane fuel, kerosene, weakened steel structural supports. We know, from past events, that the rate of fall of the Twin Towers cannot be explained by fire; that is internal structural material would have braked, not accelerated, the fall of the towers. Besides, in every known case of a high rise fire accompanied by the destruction of an entire building, the structural support remained standing. As indicated, it is known that Bldng 7 was not struck by an airplane. Regarding the Pentagon, where is one piece of evidence showing tha a plane hit the building and not a missile. Regarding Pennsylvania, where is one piece of evidence that a plane went down in a field. Respected Generals have written reports claiming that he was personally ordered by Cheney to stand down during the actual attack and not respond as normal. Cheney, by the way, had himself put in charge of a sensitive post dealing with air control, and a member of Bush's family was on the Board of Directors of a company that did security work on the Twin Towers.
Finally, we know that Osama bin Laden, the accused perpetrator, was in Afghanistan. That country was largely ignored while the United States attacked Iraq, and secured that nation's oil wealth. In other words, you'd have to be insane to believe that the Pentagon is not covering up the facts related to 9-11, ala Joseph Goebbels, "The Big Lie."

Stag R Lee said:

9-11Hatched in the Pentagon?

That is a plan has been in existence, long before 9-11; a plan that described a switch between a drone appearing to be a passenger plane and an actual carrier. The true passengers were later off boarded at an unknown location, but had--in theory--no idea of what happened.

With respect to WTC, we know that the melting point of steel does not support the government's theory that air plane fuel, kerosene, weakened steel structural supports. We know, from past events, that the rate of fall of the Twin Towers cannot be explained by fire; that is internal structural material would have braked, not accelerated, the fall of the towers. Besides, in every known case of a high rise fire accompanied by the destruction of an entire building, the structural support remained standing. As indicated, it is known that Bldng 7 was not struck by an airplane. Regarding the Pentagon, where is one piece of evidence showing tha a plane hit the building and not a missile. Regarding Pennsylvania, where is one piece of evidence that a plane went down in a field. Respected Generals have written reports claiming that he was personally ordered by Cheney to stand down during the actual attack and not respond as normal. Cheney, by the way, had himself put in charge of a sensitive post dealing with air control, and a member of Bush's family was on the Board of Directors of a company that did security work on the Twin Towers.
Finally, we know that Osama bin Laden, the accused perpetrator, was in Afghanistan. That country was largely ignored while the United States attacked Iraq, and secured that nation's oil wealth. In other words, you'd have to be insane to believe that the Pentagon is not covering up the facts related to 9-11, ala Joseph Goebbels, "The Big Lie."

Click to expand...

Hey look, a Truther! :giggle:

I'd love to see the scientific evidence to back your claims up.

evidence?

they've gotten to you too haven't they

Stag R Lee said:

9-11Hatched in the Pentagon?
That is a plan has been in existence, long before 9-11; a plan that described a switch between a drone appearing to be a passenger plane and an actual carrier. The true passengers were later off boarded at an unknown location, but had--in theory--no idea of what happened.

Click to expand...

Like I said...

Kyuubi said:

...I'd say the pentagon no plane theories are on par with thinking no planes hit the trade centers (instead claiming holograms, DEW, mini-nukes, and missiles)...

Click to expand...

You listen to truthers for a couple of years and you can pretty much predict what they'll argue. No offense.... but after hearing this stuff for several years I've yet to see those like yourself provide anything more than a fictitious hollywood scenario.

Stag R Lee said:

Besides, in every known case of a high rise fire accompanied by the destruction of an entire building, the structural support remained standing. As indicated, it is known that Bldng 7 was not struck by an airplane.

Click to expand...

Seen the melted steel canard countless times. It's a strawman... give it up :\. And the same people that use this crap trap argument of never before in history also think reinforced concrete construction somehow matches the criteria as a comparable to steel. The almighty "never before in history" argument is for people too lazy to learn how to do a proper architectural/engineering case study. We learn how to do this in our freshmen year of college, it's not exactly hard.

I ain't going through the rest.... it's the same regurgitated "stuff" I've seen for the last few years... And you're blanket claiming in a thread that deals with one particular part of the 9/11 stuff... I don't like much the idea of disrespecting the thread creator or staff with a derail.

David said:

Hey look, a Truther! :giggle:

Click to expand...

David said:

I'd love to see the scientific evidence to back your claims up.

Click to expand...

If there were scientific evidence to back it up, how would you access it and how would you verify it? After all, the official version is verified by experts.
Interesting, a new propaganda term by which one can automatically dismiss an argument without rebuttal. How convenient. Are we using #1 from this source, or #3?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truther
Number one is a nut who doesn’t believe in the official 9/11 story.
Number three is a nut who doesn’t believe there were WMDs in Iraq. However, it could be a number three talking about 9/11, couldn’t it?
I live within 15 miles of the Mexican border across from Mexicali, the capital of Baja California. After 9/ll, a station, or stations, in Mexico began broadcasting a conspiracy theory on 9/11. It all seemed quite reasonable to me because I really didn’t know caca about 9/11. After all, I wasn’t there, and my only source is the American Media which I have caught lying too many times to retain any credibility. By lying, I’m referring to reporting on events in which I was involved.
Needless to say, the conspiracy program was not broadcast on the American channels to which I had access.
I wonder what would have happened if the conspiracy program was the only program to which the American public was exposed. What would have been credible then?
I tend to disbelieve the conspiracy theory in this case because to pull it off, the Bush-Cheney team would have to have been competent. Such an anomaly in their behavior is difficult to accept.
If all that were involved would be the American media reporting their lies, that is believable and consistent with experience, but they had to actually plan and execute activities which required some degree of precision. Obviously beyond their capabilities.

Well the movement does tend to call itself the "truth" movement for a reason, I don't think they picked the "truth" name from the urban dictionary, and as a movement the truther label is a fairly accurate representation of what they associate the name with.

Haven't cared much for the conspiracy movies they tried to put out, since more of the rational behind the claims they make is exponentially worse than the media dishonesty you've been pointing out in your criticism. They in fact make the media bias I see in politics here look like cream puff in comparison.

Kyuubi said:

Well the movement does tend to call itself the "truth" movement for a reason, I don't think they picked the "truth" name from the urban dictionary, and as a movement the truther label is a fairly accurate representation of what they associate the name with.

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

Haven't cared much for the conspiracy movies they tried to put out, since more of the rational behind the claims they make is exponentially worse than the media dishonesty you've been pointing out in your criticism. They in fact make the media bias I see in politics here look like cream puff in comparison.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the time I was watching a Jerry Brown interview, yes, you know, Moonbeam as the media named him. During the interview, Jerry Brown stated flatly the all politicians were crooks. When questioned, he admitted that that included him in his role as a politician.
At first, the statement struck me as radical. It took me a moment to realize why. I was watching the media. One of the first goals of propaganda is to radicalize the truth. The only flaw in Brown?s statement was that he should have qualified politicians to the set of successful politicians.
You live in propaganda, it is part of your reality construct. You may note now and then a contradiction or a logical flaw, but by and large, you accept. That is not intended to imply superiority, the same holds true for me as well. I look with dubious eye, but it is impossible to examine every item in the almost infinite flow of minutia.
Even if I could isolate myself from the propaganda barrage, I would live with those who were exposed. In order to communicate with them, I would have to use the terminology of their reality construct.
Interestingly, when I have encountered people from iron curtain countries who had recently immigrated to the West, it was easier to communicate with them than my fellow Americans. First, the Soviet propaganda was crude, and thus, more easily perceived, and secondly, the emigrants were still recovering from the realization that, while their original propaganda was largely a lie, there was a lot of truth about the West as well. Unlike my fellow Americans, they could recognize propaganda when they saw it.
Oh, and was the "truther" label picked by the labeled or the labelers?

Much like I'm often being called a republican, and others democrat, communist, or whatever word you want to use... "Truther" is an adjective almost to describe how they're associated with the "Truth movement". Most of of the big names in it don't seem to have a problem with such a label in part because they make the word "truth" a part of their titles. For example Architects & engineers for 911 truth, "Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth," 911truth, and the like.

It's part of their "motto" so to speak... :\
The "truther" term often gets the same treatment as conspiracy theories, but by enlarge what you're dealing with in many of these 9/11truth topics is architecture, engineering and chemistry, & forensics rather than something as vast as politics. And unlike politics there's no wiggle room to be passing off incompetent science as opinion, hence why I consider their little bout of propaganda worse than the mainstream media in politics...

Kyuubi said:

Much like I'm often being called a republican, and others democrat, communist, or whatever word you want to use... "Truther" is an adjective almost to describe how they're associated with the "Truth movement". Most of of the big names in it don't seem to have a problem with such a label in part because they make the word "truth" a part of their titles. For example Architects & engineers for 911 truth, "

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, " 911truth, and the like.
It's part of their "motto" so to speak... :\
The "truther" term often gets the same treatment as conspiracy theories, but by enlarge what you're dealing with in many of these 9/11truth topics is architecture, engineering and chemistry, & forensics rather than something as vast as politics. And unlike politics there's no wiggle room to be passing off incompetent science as opinion, hence why I consider their little bout of propaganda worse than the mainstream media in politics...

Click to expand...

This is a tough one to reply to without losing it. This is my fifth attempt, the first four were deleted. It?s hard to handle this one without offending people. I have a talent for that as it is, but you have to try to stay within limits.
()
I feel that all civilized social orders are unjust. They are set up for the Elites. If you want to argue with that, point out an exception.
I feel that I have two choices, I can be for me, or for justice. There are other choices. A lot of folks identify with the Elites.
I feel that if most folks who are reasonably decent go for justice collectively, they will come out ahead of the game. So I?ll go for justice. However, in order to figure out what is just, you need to know the truth. After all, if you don?t know the game, how can you tell what?s fair?
So truth is first, because without truth, you haven?t a clue. Of course, you can?t get to truth, but you can try. You can?t be perfect, but you can always be better, well, hopefully.
So I?m after the truth. Does that make me a Truther? Kind of wonder about that word. The folks who claim that Obama was born in Kenya aren?t called Truthers. You seem to feel that if you say you?re for truth, you?re a Truther. But who isn?t? At least publicly. Who comes out and says I?m for lies? Oh, they come out to support lies all right, but they don?t admit that the lies are lies.
You say folks want to be called Truthers. Well, who steps up and says I?m a Truther? To you, if someone says he?s for truth, he?s a Truther, but that?s what you say, not what he says.
However, Truther is a handy word. If someone doesn?t believe that there are WMDs in Iraq, he?s a Truther.
It?s such a handy word for propagandists that it?s a little hard to believe that it wasn?t made up by propagandists. This is the conspiracy forum, isn?t it?

Whatever problem you have with my use of the label you will need to take up with the group that decided to use it as part of their namesake. You can call yourself a "truther" if you want but there is a big difference in being someone that believes in Pentagon/wtc no-planerism, controlled demolition, etc and one that believes the government is a corrupt piece of crap. I would think the context of my reference would be clear already, I'm not exactly abusing it to mock whatever issues you take with mainstream American politics.

If you take issue with people using it like it describes an idiot, perhaps you're correct to take issue with it. But then, I doubt based on your posting you've spent a considerable period of time arguing with some of those people like others have. You have to consider that these kinds of theories have floated around for almost a decade and those theories have gotten quite stagnant for those who've spent too much time on it. Once you've spent time you'll find that these theories getting intensely repetitive

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way :\

Kyuubi said:

Whatever problem you have with my use of the label you will need to take up with the group that decided to use it as part of their namesake. You can call yourself a "truther" if you want but there is a big difference in being someone that believes in Pentagon/wtc no-planerism, controlled demolition, etc and one that believes the government is a corrupt piece of crap. I would think the context of my reference would be clear already, I'm not exactly abusing it to mock whatever issues you take with mainstream American politics.

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

If you take issue with people using it like it describes an idiot, perhaps you're correct to take issue with it. But then, I doubt based on your posting you've spent a considerable period of time arguing with some of those people like others have. You have to consider that these kinds of theories have floated around for almost a decade and those theories have gotten quite stagnant for those who've spent too much time on it. Once you've spent time you'll find that these theories getting intensely repetitive
Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way :\

Click to expand...

Wouldn?t think of taking it the wrong way. I couldn?t even imagine what the wrong way would be.
It?s always nice for us young folks to get straightened out by the older more experienced folks such as yourself. Since I am a new comer to the propaganda wars, I tend to jump to conclusions.
Curious though, just which groups refer to themselves as "Truthers"? Perhaps you could give me an example or two?

The term "truther" in this context is something called adjective, a modification of a noun, the 911 truth movement consisting mostly of people believing that the Pentagon was hit by a missile in some fantastically outrageous flyover mission, controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, and the shoot down of flight 93 might be an indication... Yes I do happen to think members of that movement are intellectually challenged when they start to say crazy things like fire is harmless to steel, or that the planes were faked... and such. You want examples... I suppose you can review the group links I provided you earlier... I'm not sure how your somewhat justified issues with the use of it as an ad hominem redeem these people from spreading claims which are very clearly between the realm of incompetent, and utterly ridiculous however - the focus of why I think "911 truthers" are ridiculous.


Or if you really want to be nit picky about it... I could call you a truther as you wish... but you're insinuation that the government is full of lying dirtbags is more grounded in reality than claiming a bunch of people from the secret service demolished a building after letting it burn for several hours to do the same job a paper shredder could have done in 5 seconds. Forgive me when I fail to see any sort of analogue between you're own version of a "truth movement" and the mainstream "911 truth movement"


Sorry to spoil the fun... I just don't have the same witty quality in my responses... I'm terrible at that art...

Kyuubi said:

The term "truther" in this context is something called adjective, a modification of a noun, the 911 truth movement consisting mostly of people believing that the Pentagon was hit by a missile in some fantastically outrageous flyover mission, controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, and the shoot down of flight 93 might be an indication... Yes I do happen to think members of that movement are intellectually challenged when they start to say crazy things like fire is harmless to steel, or that the planes were faked... and such. You want examples... I suppose you can review the group links I provided you earlier... I'm not sure how your somewhat justified issues with the use of it as an ad hominem redeem these people from spreading claims which are very clearly between the realm of incompetent, and utterly ridiculous however - the focus of why I think "911 truthers" are ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

Or if you really want to be nit picky about it... I could call you a truther as you wish... but you're insinuation that the government is full of lying dirtbags is more grounded in reality than claiming a bunch of people from the secret service demolished a building after letting it burn for several hours to do the same job a paper shredder could have done in 5 seconds. Forgive me when I fail to see any sort of analogue between you're own version of a "truth movement" and the mainstream "911 truth movement"
Sorry to spoil the fun... I just don't have the same witty quality in my responses... I'm terrible at that art...

Click to expand...

Why not just refute the claims if they are so obvious? However, the 9/11 conspiracy people have a few undeniable points. One, 9/11 was incredibly convenient for "W" and crew. Two, "W" and crew did a lot of lying about Iraq. Three, without 9/11, the invasion of Iraq would have been exceedingly difficult to sell.
Add one reasonable speculation. Without 9/11, "W" wouldn?t have been elected. I say elected because he really wasn?t elected for the first term.
()
In a criminal trial, motive is usually a significant factor.
()
Now, it?s a lot easier to refute these points if you just say "Truther" and walk away.
Remember, at the beginning, I said I don?t buy the 9/11 conspiracy theory as it is. However, I?m open to a new version. After all, remember how the mainstream media supported "W" and crew?s lies before the invasion of Iraq? Afterwards, when it was a little late, then the truth came out, well, partially anyway.

The problem is that by enlarge the "911 truth" movement doesn't think the same way you do. Most of them claim Bush not only used 911 as a driving force to go into Iraq, but that he also orchestrated the attacks with his administration using absolutely insane methods to carry it all out. I've spent considerable time discussing engineering explanations that cover the collapse of the WTC, and the plane crash into the Pentagon - in fact you can view one of my recent exchanges here on this forum in the other 9/11 thread which went on for over four pages. The people who believe in these no plane and demolition theories aren't changing their minds any time soon.

I don't fully agree with you that Bush was seriously trying to be diabolical with his move into Iraq, but your stance is worlds apart from the insanity I run into with these theories even with that...

Kyuubi said:

The problem is that by enlarge the "911 truth" movement doesn't think the same way you do. Most of them claim Bush not only used 911 as a driving force to go into Iraq, but that he also orchestrated the attacks with his administration using absolutely insane methods to carry it all out. I've spent considerable time discussing engineering explanations that cover the collapse of the WTC, and the plane crash into the Pentagon - in fact you can view one of my recent exchanges here on this forum in the other 9/11 thread which went on for over four pages. The people who believe in these no plane and demolition theories aren't changing their minds any time soon.

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

I don't fully agree with you that Bush was seriously trying to be diabolical with his move into Iraq, but your stance is worlds apart from the insanity I run into with these theories even with that...

Click to expand...

Yes, it?s just a matter of common sense. However, common sense is crafted by the media. One of the first goals of propaganda is to radicalize the truth.
It is a technique that started with the origin of the Conspiracy Theory bit.
()
Whenever there is a spectacular event with a tinge of mystery to it, there will be crackpot theories. So the media gives full reign to the crackpot theories. Then the propagandist have a field day shooting down the crackpot theories. The serious objections to the official story are suppressed and the public never sees them. Quite frequently the serious objections require knowledge beyond the norms of the public. If specialists who try to explain them are ridiculed, or more commonly ignored, then the public never gets to consider them.
()
The serious objections to the official version of 9/11 have nothing to do with the melting point of steel, nor the official version of what happened on the ground or in the sky. They have to do with what led up to 9/11. I doubt if you have ever heard of these theories. It wouldn?t matter. What do you know about the history of the American involvement in the Mid-East? If you are like most Americans, it?s nothing. 9/11 simply came out of nowhere. A bunch of crazy terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. If anyone had scripted this ahead of events, it would have made for an improbable movie.
9/11 was the result of a series of covert actions by the CIA and a tangled web of alliances within the Mid-East. At one time, we were allies with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians, we were conspicuous in our silence. The poison gas was sold to Saddam by Germany, our NATO ally.
I can?t begin to educate you as to the entire history of this mess. By result, I don?t mean the CIA planned it, I?m saying without the CIA?s actions, it would never have happened. However, then again, I?m not saying the CIA didn?t plan it. If the CIA could flood our inner cities with cocaine to help support the Contras in Nicaragua, what are the limitations of their capabilities.

Ignoramus said:

Whenever there is a spectacular event with a tinge of mystery to it, there will be crackpot theories. So the media gives full reign to the crackpot theories.

Click to expand...

Errr... the mainstream media doesn't even consider the 911 truth crackpot theories entertaining enough to cover. Pretty rare for anything outside of Alex Jones and Coast to Coast late night radio to give these sorts of things any real coverage. Media's too busy playing politics between Obama and Bush.

Ignoramus said:

Then the propagandist have a field day shooting down the crackpot theories. The serious objections to the official story are suppressed and the public never sees them. Quite frequently the serious objections require knowledge beyond the norms of the public. If specialists who try to explain them are ridiculed, or more commonly ignored, then the public never gets to consider them.
()
The serious objections to the official version of 9/11 have nothing to do with the melting point of steel, nor the official version of what happened on the ground or in the sky. They have to do with what led up to 9/11. I doubt if you have ever heard of these theories. It wouldn?t matter. What do you know about the history of the American involvement in the Mid-East? If you are like most Americans, it?s nothing. 9/11 simply came out of nowhere. A bunch of crazy terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. If anyone had scripted this ahead of events, it would have made for an improbable movie.
9/11 was the result of a series of covert actions by the CIA and a tangled web of alliances within the Mid-East. At one time, we were allies with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians, we were conspicuous in our silence. The poison gas was sold to Saddam by Germany, our NATO ally.
I can?t begin to educate you as to the entire history of this mess. By result, I don?t mean the CIA planned it, I?m saying without the CIA?s actions, it would never have happened. However, then again, I?m not saying the CIA didn?t plan it. If the CIA could flood our inner cities with cocaine to help support the Contras in Nicaragua, what are the limitations of their capabilities.

Click to expand...

First of all... you entered a thread discussing a lunatic fringe theory. You're discussion of Iraq completely breaks off from it.

Secondly, I was 14 when this attack happened, I've had plenty of time since then to look up the basics. America decided it was bright idea to fight the soviets in Afghanistan by fighting along side BinLaden and the mujahideen. We also sided with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. America's full of this sort of history. So part of what Bush pushed into Iraq on was essentially getting rid of a guy that the US for all intents and purposes propelled into power in the first place... This isn't mainstream 9/11 truth... True they may have some parallel beliefs to this, but like I said the movement is a lunatic fringe.

9/11 didn't exactly come out of nowhere either... it's the result of a long history of Islamic radicalism, which as much as you point out America's flaws through it's past actions still exists. It uses the same principals to legitimize acts of terrorism. Gotta love the chain of hatred with that nasty relationship...

Kyuubi said:

So part of what Bush pushed into Iraq on was essentially getting rid of a guy that the US for all intents and purposes propelled into power in the first place...

Click to expand...

Oft repeated crap makes it stink no less. We took them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism briefly because they were fighting Iran.

As you will recall we had very good reason to be unhappy with Iran.

Kyuubi said:

Errr... the mainstream media doesn't even consider the 911 truth crackpot theories entertaining enough to cover. Pretty rare for anything outside of Alex Jones and Coast to Coast late night radio to give these sorts of things any real coverage. Media's too busy playing politics between Obama and Bush.

Click to expand...

Kyuubi said:

First of all... you entered a thread discussing a lunatic fringe theory. You're discussion of Iraq completely breaks off from it.
Secondly, I was 14 when this attack happened, I've had plenty of time since then to look up the basics. America decided it was bright idea to fight the soviets in Afghanistan by fighting along side BinLaden and the mujahideen.

Click to expand...

When I entered the thread, they weren’t discussing whether the chaps in the Pentagon were scared when the plane hit them. Do I have to go back to that?
Actually, we weren’t fighting alongside the Afghans then. The CIA was fighting through proxies. Did you know that it was during the Soviet Afghan conflict that Al Qaeda was formed? Now if you were a conspiracy theorist, there was ample time for bin Laden and the CIA to get to know each other. Yes, the CIA’s memory is a bit different now and they could be telling the truth. It happens.
However, it does warm the heart to know that thanks to the United States and Osama bin Laden, radical Islam won out in Afghanistan.

We also sided with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. America's full of this sort of history. So part of what Bush pushed into Iraq on was essentially getting rid of a guy that the US for all intents and purposes propelled into power in the first place... This isn't mainstream 9/11 truth... True they may have some parallel beliefs to this, but like I said the movement is a lunatic fringe.

Click to expand...

Ah, but how old were you when the CIA overthrew the Iranian Government and installed the Shaw? You see, when the Iranians rioted against the Shaw, they stormed the American Embassy. The folks inside were a little slow in burning their secret files. They left some files explaining America’s role in the rise of the Shaw and our support for the Shaw. Since one of the Shaw’s hobbies was having his gestapo torture dissidents, there was a little resentment towards the folks helping him. That’s why the rioters held on to the hostages, that and just in case the United States were to stage a military strike to restore the Shaw.
I was a little older than 14 when this went down, and I kind of remember a few things the media doesn’t talk about nowadays.
Then there was Carter’s hostage rescue attempt. If it had succeeded, Carter would have gotten another term, it didn’t. However, if you want some interesting reading, read the details of why it failed. Just the official details. This is the conspiracy forum but history will give you the details, then you can roll your own.
After that, we had the Iranians holding unto the hostage until Reagan got elected. There were a few rumors that some promises were made. Well, there are always rumors. However, strangely enough, after Reagan came to power, the hostages were immediately released. Then his administration, illegally in what would have been called treason by anyone other than Saint Reagan, began selling arms to the Iranians. In fact, one of the reasons that support was given to Saddam was to increase the need for the weapons. The money was needed for another illegal operation involving the CIA. Seems like the CIA got to do a lot of things the American public wasn’t aware of.
As a matter of fact, if an airplane hadn’t gone down in Nicaragua and one of the crew, Eugene Hasenfus, against CIA orders, been wearing a parachute, Iran-Contragate would have been just another conspiracy theory.
After that, supporting Iran clandestinely became a bit unpopular and the pro Saddam faction won out. Saddam got his poison gas, and was turned loose to slaughter his neighbors. He became our boy. We even sent our navy to support him when he got in trouble, and we managed to shoot down a civilian airbus with about two hundred civilians aboard. You missed out on some wonderful conspiracy theories that our media concocted to justify that one.
Saddam got so used to being our running dog that he felt that he wouldn’t have a problem invading Kuwait. Of course, he talked it over with our ambassador first. Somehow, he got the idea from her that he wouldn’t have a problem with the US if he did the deed. Since I wasn’t privy to the conversation, I don’t know whether Saddam was just plain stupid or she set him up. Saddam didn’t survive as long as he did by just being plain stupid.
Well, this is just the beginning of a wonderful tale, but I’ve obviously ran out of space. However, it only gets more amazing from here on.

9/11 didn't exactly come out of nowhere either... it's the result of a long history of Islamic radicalism, which as much as you point out America's flaws through it's past actions still exists. It uses the same principals to legitimize acts of terrorism. Gotta love the chain of hatred with that nasty relationship...

Click to expand...

There’s a bit of history behind that one, too. Too bad I don’t have the space to fill you in.

obtuseobserver said:

We took them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism briefly because they were fighting Iran.

As you will recall we had very good reason to be unhappy with Iran.

Click to expand...

Of course. It was one of those cases where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deals...